Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For the AGW alarmists who simply point to an alleged "consensus" or "peer review" as proof, as opposed to actual science. Well, here's an interesting article about about a scientist who was caught faking peer reviews of his ocean tidal analysis. 60 faked peer reviews in fact. Quite the consensus he had. Another interesting note that I learned reading this article is that when scientists (all scientists, not just the one who was caught this time) turn in a research article, they themselves give references to the editor of which fellow scientists should peer review their articles. If I was getting paid to promote AGW & I just wrote an article, would I provide refernces to scientists who I knew would agree with me, or who might disagree with me? Hmmmmm....Maybe those reports of "Group think" by the IPCC scientists who've been quitting aren't so far off the mark?
This sort of thing is exactly the reason you should be skeptical of both sides of an argument. Get the verifiable stats and facts and think it through for yourself.
For the AGW alarmists who simply point to an alleged "consensus" or "peer review" as proof, as opposed to actual science. Well, here's an interesting article about about a scientist who was caught faking peer reviews of his ocean tidal analysis. 60 faked peer reviews in fact. Quite the consensus he had. Another interesting note that I learned reading this article is that when scientists (all scientists, not just the one who was caught this time) turn in a research article, they themselves give references to the editor of which fellow scientists should peer review their articles. If I was getting paid to promote AGW & I just wrote an article, would I provide refernces to scientists who I knew would agree with me, or who might disagree with me? Hmmmmm....Maybe those reports of "Group think" by the IPCC scientists who've been quitting aren't so far off the mark?
Someone else posted this link in one of the other AGW threads. I found it an interesting read.
My bet? The AGW chihuahuas are already planning their counter attacks, just as they have with the leaked e-mails a couple of years ago. Hell, next thing you know they will have "proof" that SAGE is funded by Exxon Mobile!
PS the climate science community is a closed one who constantly reinforce themselves in their computer models and their beliefs. It's no different than those who want to prove that non whites are inferior to whites, so go to the Klan and the Skinheads for validation of their research.
Damage control? This acoustics journal (Journal of Vibration and Control) should be shut down and its editorial staff should be blacklisted.
And since similar actions have been documented in the AGW community, what do you suggest happen there?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
